Posts made by allboxcars

@SAS:

bump so I can find it easier instead of having to look through previous pages.

Is it possible to have this stickied for reference when discussing the Europe 1940 map?

Bump

And I second the motion for stickiness.

#659

Why I would say that is I don’t think that given the crude tech / C4I of the time that a cavalry piece, for instance, was a unit of independent manouevre that would stray too far from a inf piece.

A bunch of guys on horse back wouldn’t invade Poland much less blitz thru.

Problem appears to me that in Napoleonic warfighting which to me seems very similar to the move/countermove of Rock Paper Scissors (Rank), they’re too homogeneous to strike out on their own. Run into some inf squares and… well, it was a fun hack lads, back to stables.

In contrast to A&A where each piece is actually a WW2 all-arms formation of varying composition such that even a tank piece would have intrinsic inf; ballpark it at 1/3 - 1/2 of the sharp end?
So in that case tanks run into Built Up Area, dismount the PBI and away you go: Game On.

I dunno maybe it’s just a question of what is your level of comfort with abstraction in order to get the cool sculpts on board?

#658

OK sorry but using an armoured car for mech inf just ain’t working for me…  :-(

IMTO if you can’t fit a section of PBI inside it then you’re outside your arcs methinks.

#657

@Upside-down_Turtle:

[Btw, just played my first ever game of Settlers of Catan.  Even after having it explained to me 3 times, I was totally brain dead on it until I actually started playing.  Almost won, too, surprisingly. 
[/quote]

Don’t worry you’ll get a grip on it quickly.
A great game especially for mixed company!

#656

Hmmm I wonder if the Native Americans in the two countries think the history of the American west is full of “better things” than the history of the Canadian west?

Anyway, nice to see the diversity of ages in the poll.

#655

@calvinhobbesliker:

Actually, the South fired the first military shot

Ah yes… and yet when I visited South Carolina, to hear them tell of it, you wouldn’t think so.  :-D

#653

Well we could pursue this but even in General Discussion it isn’t tolerated.

Adieu.

#652

@ABWorsham:

The War of Southern Independence.

Hey, is that a.k.a. The War of Northern Aggression?

Anyway, WW2 got my vote, from the perspective of someone not knowing the target audience, as most interesting to study solely on the basis of recency and quality of documentation with emphasis on video footage.

Properly, and passionately, pursued the study of any war can be extremely interesting!!!  :-D

#651

@LHoffman:

We all know by now that Dylan cannot spell very well. Let’s cut him some slack…

Well it was spelled correctly, sadly I cannot count the number of ppl I’ve heard use the word that way

… and then the image of Stalin as Juliet… the post wrote itself.
My bad.

#650

@Brain:

At 2 years per country, I could be dead before they are completed.

I was going to buy that nifty wooden box anticipating storing my playing pieces.

Now I’m likely to have other things to store in a wooden box…

#649

@timerover51:

I am not sure that it would be that difficult to make an A&A type of Napoleonic game….

Well, I’m not doubting the availability for figures. But I understand that Risk has those now and it’s a far, far cry from what A&A does, right?

As for Spain… hmmm, well you could increase the number of territories in a given nation without permitting army generation to match it so you’d still have the Napoleonic tendency to launch one campaign and not a broad front approach…

Still what you seem to be leaning towards is a tactical game with a strategic supply-driven backdrop… most of the Napoleonic games I’m seeing have that level of conflict, not A&A scale.
Mind you that’s very likely just me and my all too brief survey of what’s out there…

Adding some comments:
At a quick glance, for instance, Napoleon in Europe seems to have this dual approach requiring a… tactical/inter-relational battleboard so to speak… front rank, rear, flanks etc.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/178138/napoleon-in-europe

To me, this is straying from the style of A&A.

Now on the other hand there’s Age of Napoleon which seems to remain above the tactical level…

But the trade-off, as you can see in doing so uses army chits that give us detailed strengths and weaknesses of the formations / generals…
But horror of horrors! those formations amalgamate the branches (inf, cav, art) represented by our cherished A&A-style playing pieces!

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/443140/age-of-napoleon

So in other words, if we want pretty horses on our Age of Napoleon mapboard we’d have to use them in a goofy manner like Risk… infantry = a weak army, cannon = a moderate army, and cavalry = kick-@$$ army.
Again, not A&A-style IMTO.

#648

Ahh yes. Thanks.
Actually I had it in there at one point but removed it as Jeremy was speaking about the Liberator and I already had a quote capturing his intent with that.

Anyway, I guess time will tell what FMG produces and until then wish lists will run amok, be bumped, be forgotten, be regurgitated etc.

#647

@Dylan:

What if you were versing Stalin himself?

Versing?  You mean like composing an ode as he stood on a balcony in the moonlight?

A little extravagant for a ceasefire I’d think.

#646

Well I don’t think you can actually say that the Vietnam War saw a weaker opponent get defeated in the battlefield but still win politically.

That would capture the American perspective perhaps.

But the North Vietnamese had to switch from asymmetrical to conventional warfare in order to complete their victory… they just waited until the US left South Vietnam.

Much like the Britons once the Legions left and a number of other asymmetrical wars. Wars of waiting for the apex predator to leave.

Similarly, if the Taliban continue to fight for influence in Afghanistan with bullets (and not ballots) then once NATO packs up, they will shift gears to pursue a more conventional course to dislodge the government and “win” the war.
Victory there will undoubtedly require a home grown means to win that conventional fight without NATO.

#645

Well I must admit I was thinking of A&A as found in global games, so excluding Guadalcanal, BOTB and D-Day.

#644

@Dylan:

But Britain was being a little b****.

I believe that’s what Goering said during the Battle of Britain, isn’t it?

#643

Sad thing is that to me it seems like an all-or-nothing proposal… if you have one nation set aren’t you sort of compelled to buy a set for all nations?

#642

@CWO:

…the basic four-cycle mechanism of “Income buys units / Units fight battles / Battles win territory / Territory generates income”.

Hmmm so that’s what: blow/bang/squeeze/suck?

#641

Just wish I wasn’t paying Hasbro for monopoly pieces that I could use to cover a deficiency in A&A.

Kind of like asking your wife if the guy she’s sleeping with could walk the dog while you’re out of town.

#640

Ya know I thought 100+ pages but you say it’s blatantly obvious so clearly I won’t need to look thru all of them and besides Jeremy doesn’t post too often……

Anyway it couldn’t find that commitment to selecting different vehicles than WOTC did (forget about repeated “multiple times”)…

Actually THIS seems to be FMG’s guiding principle:

@FieldMarshalGames:

As for Naval units and Air units we will stick with the ICONIC types.

Now on certain specific units, FMG has another idea…
@FieldMarshalGames:

What do ya’l think about the Liberator?  It was actually the most common US bomber of the war and was produced more than an other US aircraft.  I want to do something DIFFERENT from the WOTC units.

But then what happened to the Italian bomber?
@FieldMarshalGames:

If I remember correctly…it is.  it is the same Italian bomber than comes with AA50

So personally I’d think if Jeremy has asserted anything it’s the principle of iconic choice eh?
@FieldMarshalGames:

Just wanted to mention also that I REALLY like the Corsair.  It was a fighter/Tac bomber.

If it was only up to me I would use it as the Tac bomber…  But Im sure most will wnat a more “iconic” Tac bomber for the USA.

I just don’t see this commitment to produce other models….

So maybe, since people are going on and on about what vehicles FMG should produce, it makes sense to raise the question with FMG eh?
For example, is there a point to researching and suggesting a Tank #1 AND a Tank #2 when that nation has a clearly iconic tank?

Anyway I leave you with this:
@FieldMarshalGames:

For the record I think the stock AAA pieces are great!  We just want to make something DELUXE and really cool… as well as being Historically accurate.

#639